You still have not answered the first question. We know you're going to do a study. Fine. I guess that means you do not accept that 100% of independent scientific peer reviewed studies show the toxicity of aspartame. Also, here is a new study: http://www.mpwhi.com/epilepsy_study_incriminates_aspartame.htm See below:

So these independent, not controlled by industry, studies don't convince Food Standards. The Ramazzini Study confirming FDA's original findings that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen was peer reviewed by 7 world experts. Yet you use the EFSA's version even though they confessed to being pressured by industry and their interpretation was wrong.

But there are certain acceptable standards, and you use industry propaganda on your web
site. The Trocho Study shows that the formaldehyde converted from free methyl alcohol embalms living tissue. What made Food Standards use a flack's interpretation even though he admitted he used the wrong methanol test? Why does Food Standards have to use an industry flack to say independent research is wrong. Why not just accept independent research like you accept industry research defending its product? Answer me this question about going to something else. I want to know why you use industry propaganda on your web site and you haven't answered.

The aspartame manufacturers propaganda is well known and has no validity whatsoever. It's like knowing that 2 plus 2 equal four. There are established standards. Here is industry propaganda rebutted with medical references. http://www.dorway.com/offasprt.html Why is this not on your web site to show the truth. We get sick of hearing there is more methanol in orange than in aspartame. What has that got to do with the fact at all. In nature or in oranges there is ethanol which is the classic antidote for methanol poisoning. There is no ethanol in aspartame. In nature methanol binds to pectin. So why are you still using industry propaganda that has no validity? Can you answer me that question?

If industry does a study you accept it. If independent studies are done you only list them
if you have a flack to say they are wrong. In reality its industry's studies that are wrong. There is no way to take a deadly poison like aspartame and show safety so they manipulate the studies to get what they want it to show. Here are examples of scientific abuse in seizure studies:

Why not answer this question? Why are over 100 independent studies showing aspartame toxicity not enough for food Standards? Why is it you only accept studies that show scientific abuse instead of reality? Stay on the subject and answer these questions.

Are the 100 independent studies already done not good enough for you, that you have to do another one? This still does not answer the questions that you have skirted around about using propaganda on your web site.

Okay, we know you are going to do a study. Answer me about the 100 already done and
why you use propaganda on your web site that I've shown you with medical references are wrong. You don't change it, and consumers constantly write you, and you give that same set of falsehoods over and over again.

If we don't know what aspartame does after a quarter of a century on the market we never
will. Do you think doctors write medical texts on aspartame disease if it doesn't exist?

Do you think that doctors would write detox programs for victims getting off this poison if it wasn't causing damage?: http://www.wnho.net/wtdaspartame.htm Do you think there would be Aspartame Detoxification Centers to take care of the sick and dying on aspartame if it wasn't toxic? I sent you this aspartame documentary so you could hear world experts for yourself: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/361.html Even attorney James Turner explains how Rumsfeld used political chicanery to get aspartame marketed after the FDA had revoked the petition for approval. Do you not accept these facts straight from the experts?

We've written back and forth and yet you continue to write without answering the questions. You go out of your way not to answer these questions. You can review them all on http://www.mpwhi.com click on England.

Aspartame is a deadly addictive excitoneurotoxic carcinogenic drug and there is over a quarter of a century's research proving this that you have constantly disregarded. Okay, we have established the fact this isn't good enough for you and you are going to do another study. Fine. Now answer the questions you have avoided since we started this discussion. Specifically I want to know why you have industry propaganda on your web site and even after showing you beyond a shadow of a doubt the true facts you continue to not only keep it there but when consumers complain write and tell them aspartame is safe even though studies show it's not. It should never have been approved in the UK and even Parliament had a big blowout about this because Paul Turner in the agency there at the time approved it due to a business deal with Searle.

An [ http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html ] analysis of peer reviewed medical literature using MEDLINE and other databases was conducted by Ralph G. Walton, MD, Chairman, The Center for Behavioral Medicine, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. Dr. Walton analyzed 164 studies which were felt to have relevance to human safety questions. Of those studies, 74 studies had aspartame industry-related sponsorship and 90 were funded without any industry money.

Of the 90 non-industry-sponsored studies, 83 (92%) identified one or more problems with
aspartame. Of the 7 studies which did not find a problems, 6 of those studies were conducted by the FDA. Given that a number of FDA officials went to work for the aspartame industry immediately following approval (including the former FDA Commissioner), many consider these studies to be equivalent to industry-sponsored research.

Of the 74 aspartame industry-sponsored studies, all 74 (100%) claimed that no problems were found with aspartame. This is reminiscent of tobacco industry research where it is primarily the tobacco research which never finds problems with the product, but nearly all of the independent studies do find problems.

The 74 aspartame industry-sponsored studies are those which one inveriably sees cited in PR/news reports and reported by organizations funded by Monsanto/Benevia/NutraSweet (e.g., IFIC, ADA). These studies have severe design deficiencies which help to guarantee the "desired" outcomes. These design deficiencies may not be apparent to the inexperienced scientist. Healthcare practitioners and scientists should print out the all of the documents on the [ http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse ] Monsanto/NutraSweet Scientific Abuse web page, the [ http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/aspfaq.html ] Scientific FAQs web page and the [ http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/adverse.txt ] Aspartame Toxicity Reaction Report Samples.

"These are indeed extremely high levels for adducts of formaldehyde, a substance responsible for chronic deleterious effects that has also been considered carcinogenic. .... "It is concluded that aspartame consumption may constitute a hazard because of its contribution to the formation of formaldehyde adducts."

"It was a very interesting paper, that demonstrates that formaldehyde formation from aspartame ingestion is very common and does indeed accumulate within the cell, reacting with cellular proteins (mostly enzymes) and DNA (both mitochondrial and nuclear). The fact that it accumulates with each dose, indicates grave consequences among those who consume diet drinks and foodstuffs on a daily basis." (Neuroscientist Russell Blaylock, MD)

BACKGROUND:
Fibromyalgia is a common rheumatologic disorder that is often difficult to treat effectively.

CASE SUMMARY:
Four patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia syndrome for two to 17 years are described. All had undergone multiple treatment modalities with limited success. All had complete, or nearly complete, resolution of their symptoms within months after eliminating monosodium glutamate (MSG) or MSG plus aspartame from their diet. All patients were women with multiple comorbidities prior to elimination of MSG. All have had recurrence of symptoms whenever MSG is ingested.

DISCUSSION:
Excitotoxins are molecules, such as MSG and aspartate, that act as excitatory
neurotransmitters, and can lead to neurotoxicity when used in excess. We propose that these four patients may represent a subset of fibromyalgia syndrome that is induced or exacerbated by excitotoxins or, alternatively, may comprise an excitotoxin syndrome that is similar to fibromyalgia. We suggest that identification of similar patients and research with larger numbers of patients must be performed before definitive conclusions can be made.

CONCLUSIONS:
The elimination of MSG and other excitotoxins from the diets of patients with fibromyalgia offers a benign treatment option that has the potential for dramatic results in a subset of patients. PMID: 11408989

____________________________________________________________

Aspartame and Brain Tumors

A published study in Sweden that looked at various possible causes of brain tumors (e.g., cell phones, aspartame) found a link between use of diet drinks and certain types of large brain tumors in middle-aged and elderly population groups.http://www.medscape.com/MedGenMed/braintumors

Section: [Nutrition] Facts&Findings
MIND DANGEROUS DIET DRINKS CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT YOU HAD FOR LUNCH?WHAT YOU ATE OR DRANK MIGHT BE THE REASON.
New research suggests that the artificial sweetener aspartame may actually go to your head.
By Peter Rebhahn

Anecdotal evidence that aspartame disrupts memory has been growing since the sugar substitute was approved in the early 1980s, though attempts to prove the claim have so far been equivocal. Previous studies have tested memory by asking aspartame users to remember lists of words or numbers-- tests of short-term memory. But according to Timothy M. Barth, Ph.D., a psychology professor at Texas Christian University, those studies focused on the wrong type of memory.

In his study of 90 students, Barth found that participants who regularly drank diet sodas
containing aspartame performed as well as nonusers on laboratory tests. However, aspartame users were more likely to report long-term memory lapses like forgetting details of personal routines or whether or not a task had been completed.

"These people aren't crazy," says Barth. Instead, "the type of memory problems they report are not the type of memories that have been assessed in the typical laboratory study."

After reporting his findings at a recent Society for Neuroscience meeting, Barth cautioned that he thinks it's premature to condemn aspartame. But he does worry about the largely untested effects of long-term use. Already, he has made some converts. "Several of my graduate students who drank diet soda no longer do."

Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock M.D. commented: "The new study released in the European Journal of Oncology by Morando Soffritti and co-workers should terrify mothers and all those consuming aspartame sweetened products. This was a carefully done study which clearly demonstrated a statistically significant increase in several types of lymphomas and leukemias in rats. Both of these malignancies have increased significantly in this country since the widespread use of aspartame.

"This study confirmed the previous study by Dr. Trocho and co-workers, which also found the formaldehyde breakdown product of aspartame to be damaging to cellular DNA and that this damage was accumulative. The type of damage was a duplicate of that associated with cancers. Along with this most recent study, this means that drinking a single diet cola sweetened with aspartame every day could increase one's risk of developing a lymphoma or leukemia.

"They also found an increased incidence of malignant brain tumors, even though it was not statistically significant. This does not mean there is no association to brain tumors, since only the animals exposed to aspartame developed the tumors. With children and pregnant women drinking the largest amount of diet colas, this puts their children at the greatest risk of developing one of these horrible diseases. Their study found that even low doses of aspartame could cause these malignancies; yet, the higher the dose, the more cancers that were seen."

A follow-up study was published in Environmental Health Perspectives showing that there was a significant increase in cancer of the kidney and peripheral nerves. The full published study can be found in PDF format at: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/8711/8711.pdf

____________________________________________________________

Aspartame and Weight Gain

A study conducted at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center reported a "41% increase in risk of being overweight for every can or bottle of diet soft drink a person consumes each day." The findings come from eight years of collecting data by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH and colleagues. The results of the study was reported at the 65th Annual Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association in San Diet on June 10-14, 2005 (Abstract 1058-P). While this study, by itself, does not prove that aspartame causes
weight gain, it adds to the evidence seen in independent research. For example, a study conducted by Dr. H.J. Roberts found that 5% of subjects reporting symptoms from aspartame also reported a "paridoxic weight gain." (Reactions Attributed to Aspartame-Containing Products: 551 Cases," Journal of Applied Nutrition, Volume 40, page 85-94). Lavin found that females with eating restraint had a higher Calorie intake subsequent to aspartame intake as opposed to sugar or water intake. (Lavin, J.H., S.J. French, N.W. Read, 1997. "The Effect of Sucrose- and Aspartame-Sweetened Drinks on Energy Intake, Hunger and Food Choice of Female, Moderately Restrained Eaters," International Journal of Obesity, Volume 21, pages 37-42, 1997.)

____________________________________________________________

Aspartame and Combined Toxicity from Formaldehyde & Excitotoxins

A study published in Toxicology (2005 Jun 1; 210(2-3): 235-45. "Cytotoxic effect of
formaldehyde with free radicals via increment of cellular reactive oxygen species.") by Saito and colleagues demonstrates that formaldehyde is much more toxic to cells when free radical levels are increased. As has been demonstrated by Trocho, et al. in 1998, aspartame ingestion leads to the significant exposure to and accumulation of formaldehyde adducts in the organs and tissues. In addition, 40% of aspartame breaks down into an excitotoxic amino acid. As Neuroscientist Russell Blaylock points out, "Excitotoxins destroy neurons partly by stimulating the generation of large numbers of free radicals."

SCIENCE VOL 317 6 JULY 2007 page 31 Souring on Fake Sugar Fearful it causes cancer, 12 U.S. environmental health experts last week asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review the potential health risks of the artificial sweetener aspartame, which appears in everything from medicines to diet sodas. A study published last month in Environmental Health Perspectives found somewhat more leukaemias and lymphomas in male rats receiving less aspartame than the recommended maximum for humans; at higher doses, the rats had a marked increase in cancers throughout the body. The letter from the 12 U.S. environmental health experts can be found at: http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/aspartame_letter_to_fda.pdf

Thank you for your email dated 30 June 2008 regarding aspartame and please accept my apologies for the delay in replying. It is quite clear from our correspondence that the Food Standards Agency and yourself take different views of the extensive evidence base available on the safety of aspartame. This does not mean that we are pro-industry because, as well as putting consumers first, the Agency is also committed to basing its policies on the best available scientific evidence. What it would take for us to argue within the European Union (EU) for restrictions on the food use of aspartame is scientific evidence that it cannot be used safely in food. We are aware of anecdotal reports from consumers of their concerns and this is precisely the reason we have asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to organise a further study to gain the best scientific evidence on which to base any further decisions (as previously advised in my>email dated 1 May 2008). The proposal is to compare reported symptoms and biochemical parameters in a double-blind cross-over design, which is viewed as the most accurate way of observing effects. Volunteers will be self-selecting. That is to say they will be people who have reported ill-health effects from the consumption of aspartame. As approval of all food additives is undertaken at European Union (EU) level, this study will be relevant not only to the UK but to other EU Member States. I hope this helps you understand our position better.

To: donna.griffith-sackey-foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: To Food Standards: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, No Controversy on aspartame; it's a deadly poison

So you still haven't told me why you have people working for you who are pro-industry and why you have done nothing when you know aspartame is a deadly, deadly addictive excitoneurotoxic carcinogenic drug that interacts with virtually all drugs and toxins. An article in the New York Times recently said that more people die from prescription drugs than illegal drugs, and that's because if they are using aspartame whatever they take is no doubt going to interact. I wonder how many drugs this man was using for his heart and Dr. H. J. Roberts who wrote the medical text said aspartame interacts with all cardiac medication. Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, http://www.sunsentpress.com I would suggest
you get a copy. Here is the article on the latest death:
http://www.mpwhi.com/george_carlin_and_diet_coke.htm

What does it take Ms. Griffith-Sackey to get you people to ban aspartame? All you have on your web is industry propaganda. Even when damning and prestigious studies are done on aspartame showing so much toxicity that you can't question the fact that the formaldehyde embalms living tissue (Trocho Study) and aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen (Ramazzini) you add rebuttals by industry flacks. There are efforts around the world to ban this deadly poison. 47 members of the UK Parliament have even asked for a ban, and a member of the European Food Safety Authority has confessed on their rebuttal on Ramazzini that industry pressured them to high jack science. Why does it take so long for you to answer. Food Standards was set up to distance it from industry and instead your web site shows their influence and your refusal to publish the truth. Read on.

Humphries, Pretorius and Naude (from South Africa) did a nice review of "Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain" (European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2008) Vol 62, pages 451-462.) They >talk about the toxic effects of aspartame, present their review, and conclude by saying "From all the adverse effects caused by this product, it is suggested that serious further testing and research be undertaken to eliminate any and all controversies surrounding this product." I took that as an opportunity to write to the journal saying, "There really is no controversy." It was published on-line last week, and will appear in the journal itself in the next couple of months. For those wanting to look up the Letter to the Editor, the Medline reference number is 18545263.

It is noted in the excellent review by Humphries et al. (2008) that debate [over safety] still continues 20 years after the FDA had approved the use of aspartame.

Regarding that debate, the following comments are in order.

Aspartame has never been shown to be safe for human consumption. Aspartame was discovered in 1965. Required safety testing began in 1967. To date, no research outside of the aspartame industry has found aspartame to be safe for human consumption.

In June 1979, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established a Public Board >of Inquiry (PBOI) to rule on aspartame safety issues. The PBOI concluded that NutraSweet/aspartame should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan became President of the United States; Arthur Hull Hayes Jr was named FDA Commissioner; a Commissioner's panel was established to review issues raised by the PBOI; the panel advised against approval of aspartame; Hayes overruled the PBOI, ignored the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approved aspartame for use in dry products.

The so-called aspartame-industry 'science' is flawed to the point of being worthless. Controversy about the safety of aspartame is a device used by those who profit from production and sale of the product. Industry sponsored studies referring to brain damage draw conclusions without basis. Illustrating this practice is a 1980 study which reads, in part, "On the basis of blood absorption curves...[ it] is concluded that (aspartame)...does not result in hypothalamic damage in the newborn monkey (Reynolds et al., 1980)".

Using techniques similar to those of the glutamate industry (Samuels, 1999), the aspartame industry, in studies of adverse reactions, has manipulated subjects, procedures and statistics to enable researchers to draw the conclusion that there is no significant difference in reactions following ingestion of aspartame as opposed to ingestion of placebo. The study of Geha et al., 1993 illustrates the point .

The FDA gives every appearance of cooperating with the aspartame industry in promoting the 'safety' of aspartame. Badly flawed industry sponsored studies have gone unchallenged.

Following the unwarranted approval of aspartame, the FDA Adverse Reactions Monitoring System began receiving, and accepting, unsolicited reports of reactions to aspartame. A 26 June 1997 Memorandum from Technical Information Specialist (HFS-728) to Health Hazard Evaluation Board reported that the FDA has received 7259 complaints of adverse reactions attributed to the use of aspartame.

The FDA has a history of minimizing the extent and severity of adverse reactions to food. Reports of debilitating or life-threatening reactions are not routinely investigated, and reports of 'death,' for example, are listed as 'other.'

In the late 1990s, the FDA stopped accepting reports of adverse reactions to aspartame.

In conclusion, Humphries et al., 2008 suggested that 'serious further testing and research be undertaken to eliminate any and all controversies surrounding this product'. It is suggested, rather, that with thoughtful analysis of the industry sponsored studies, it will become abundantly clear that no legitimate controversy about aspartame's toxic potential exists.